Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Identity Cards Bill

Clause 2 - Individuals entered in Register

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out '16' and insert '18'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, leave out subsections (6) and (7). 
No. 126, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (6). 
No. 18, in clause 2, page 3, line 20, at end add— 
'(8) No draft order containing a provision that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section is to be laid before Parliament unless— 
(a) the Secretary of State has prepared and published a report containing a proposal for the making of such provision; 
(b) the report sets out the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal; 
(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications; and 
(d) the draft order gives effect to the proposal so far as approved by both Houses.'.

Patrick Mercer: I will also speak to amendments Nos. 17 and 18, which are complementary to amendment No. 12, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) will speak to amendment No. 126.
On the surface, amendment No. 12, may seem simple and straightforward, and we have already touched on one or two aspects of it. Clearly, its purpose is to try to define the individuals who will be entered in the register and the limitations that will be placed upon them. First and foremost, we would like the age in subsection (2)(a) to be raised from 16 to 18. However, before coming to that, I would be interested to know from the Minister the upper age limit at which identity cards should be carried, and information about the cards put on the register in the first place. 
We have discussed on previous amendments the fact that the elderly will find the requirement extremely stressful. I fear that by now the Committee probably knows the members of my family better than the family of anyone else in the Room; that leads me to introduce my mother into the debate. My mother had an identity card, a gas mask and other bits and pieces during the war, when circumstances were in some ways not dissimilar to those we are discussing today. When I had the privilege of serving on the previous Standing Committee that considered the Bill I discussed it with my parents and my mother said, ''What's the problem  with an identity register and an identity card? I had one during the war, carried it happily and had nothing to fear. It proved and demonstrated that I wasn't a Nazi''—although that is something we sometimes doubt in the family. I told her that that made a lot of sense, but now it looks as if everyone from 16 to we know not what age will have to surrender 50 or more pieces of information about themselves and then register for the card, probably in several years' time—not to mention the cost, which I am sure we will discuss at length later. 
My mother was 10 years younger than my father, but none the less she is an elderly lady in her mid-70s. She pointed out that by the time she is likely to get a card, she will be pushing 80. She asked whether it was really necessary for her to have her fingerprints taken and her iris scanned. How likely is it that she is a terrorist? Clearly, not at all. Much more importantly and realistically, how likely is it that someone will want to use the identity of an 80-year old woman to defraud the Government, or to carry out a serious crime or act of terrorism? I think that it is pretty unlikely, and I would be grateful if the Minister would reassure us that the elderly will not have to go through the stressful process of being assessed for information for the register and the card. What upper age limit does the Minister intend to introduce, to spare the elderly from those stresses and keep the cost of the card down? 
When discussing amendments yesterday we heard that for every piece of information, every individual who must register, every individual who must go forward for a card and the issue of every card, there will be a cost, not just to the individual but to the Government. I would therefore have thought it sensible for the Government to tell us the upper age limit. 
I shall return to the precise point of the amendment.

Mark Prisk: Before this sitting, I looked at some of the preparatory information, and it seems that the problem of eye scans becomes significant beyond the 65 to 70 age group, because changes take place in the eye. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about whether the evidence presented by the Government on biometric testing—particularly eye scanning—is sufficient? I suspect that such tests would not only be awkward for the individuals involved, but might prove increasingly unreliable for people of that age group. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his useful intervention, but I shall not go into that issue in any detail now, because I know that the point will be covered by later amendments. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend has made a very good point when he says that the older a person gets, the more the retina deteriorates and changes; I think that skin patterns can also change.
The crux of one of the criticisms by the London School of Economics of the Government's intentions was that the cost would be considerably greater, particularly in relation to the elderly, because cards would have to be replaced on a much more frequent  basis than the Government claim at the moment. I do not want to get into an argument; I am sure that we shall eviscerate this subject at a later stage. None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very good point. No mention of the elderly can be made without looking in more detail at the issue that he has raised. 
I shall move to the other end of the spectrum. When is a child not a child? How do we define a child—under 16 or under 18? I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen the child impact assessment from the all-party group on children, which says that the 
''Bill contains the power to extend ID cards to children under 16 through secondary legislation''.
Will the Minister expand on that? I shall quote again from the same document: 
''For 16 and 17 year olds (and for all children if the powers of the Bill are extended) there will be a duplication of information on the National Identity Register and on the information sharing indexes to be established by the Children Act 2004 . . . the National Identity Register will contain information on individuals aged over 16. Cl.2(7) provides that the Secretary of State may by order amend the age . . . meaning that the provisions of this Bill could potentially apply to everyone in the UK from birth.''
I appreciate that we went through the ''The Day of the Jackal'' argument yesterday, and I do not wish to be flippant or irritate the Minister more than I did then. The fact remains that I should be most grateful if the Minister cleared up that point. 
The all-party group goes on to state: 
''The accepted definition of a child in the UK is up to 18 years, with some exceptions for particularly vulnerable groups''.
The document also informs us that two databases holding information about children will overlap with the new register. One is the Connexions card database, which was established under section 117 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. It is for 13 to 19-year-olds, apparently, and may be enhanced by a smart card that will be proposed in the Green Paper on youth. Secondly, information-sharing indices are to be established under section 12 of the Children Act 2004. 
The point of the amendment is to ask the Minister to point out whether information is to be duplicated. If so, are minors—those aged under 18—not already dealt with and registered perfectly adequately? Should not the age of 18, rather than 16, be introduced? That, combined with the earlier points that I made about the elderly, is the crux of amendment No. 12. 
I shall now scoop up amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Amendment No. 17 is, I hope, fairly straightforward. It would merely strike out clause 2(6). Amendment No. 18, which is complementary to it, would insert another subsection with four paragraphs. That new subsection states very clearly that 
''No draft order containing a provision that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section is to be laid before Parliament unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has prepared and published a report containing a proposal for the making of such provision;
(b) the report sets out the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal;
(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications; and
(d) the draft order gives effect to the proposal so far as approved by both Houses.'.''
I fully understand that the Bill is only enabling legislation, and I have no doubt that the Minister will quite rightly major on that idea. We said in our extended deliberations yesterday that the Bill needed to mature, and that the provisions would become clear only once it was put into operation. I completely accept that, and it would be immature of me, and of my party, not to. It would also be unrealistic to think that any Bill will be perfect when it has passed through the two Houses. 
None the less, in the context of the enabling legislation in the Bill, amendment No. 18 would make it clearer that much of the detail will be decided only as the Act matures and as registration and the issuing of cards are phased in over several years. For instance, who will carry the cards? I know that there has been much debate on that already, but we can return to the subject if we want. How much information is to be included, both on the register and the card? Who will have access to it? Who will not be included, and, as we have already asked, what compulsion, if any, will there be to carry the card? All that seems to be open for the Home Secretary to decide via secondary legislation. 
The Bill refers to an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament and that will act as some check on the Government, but the affirmative procedure is an extremely blunt tool because it does not allow for the amendment of a proposed regulation. The power to amend regulations should be written into the Bill. That would allow full legislative scrutiny and debate in Parliament. I fully understand that clause 7 allows for some alteration of powers, but I firmly believe that without amendment No. 18, we will pass a Bill that gives the Home Secretary powers to act without any further decent and detailed scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. 
The nub of the amendments is simple. First, there is the change relating to the upper and lower age limits. Secondly, and probably more importantly, amendment No. 18 would mean that if those powers were introduced, the Bill would make it clear that any alterations or changes—for instance, in relation to any compulsion to carry the card—will not simply be passed via an affirmative resolution but must be placed in front of both Houses of Parliament and subjected to proper scrutiny.

Alistair Carmichael: The points about age have largely been made by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). The amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is fairly brief. It would delete subsection (6), which gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the age limit specified in subsection (2)(a) by order. Strictly speaking, I suppose subsection (7) would become somewhat redundant if that happened, so to that extent, the Conservative amendment, which would delete it, is to be commended. 
I tabled this probing amendment because it is right to highlight the fact that there is a power to alter by order. Despite the very important protection that has been added in subsection (7), which is certainly better than the previous safeguard, the Liberal Democrats still believe that any alteration of the age should be included in the Bill and should require primary rather than secondary legislation. I am not a great fan of secondary legislation, as scrutiny of it is far too perfunctory. It is particularly undesirable when it seeks to amend primary legislation. That seems to be very much in vogue with parliamentary draftsmen at the moment, but I do not favour the practice.

Edward Garnier: I shall add one brief comment to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I repeat a concern, which I have often expressed in Committees on other Bills since 1997, about regulation-making powers. It is one thing for a Government to set before the House legislation that contains regulation-making powers, but quite another to do so without giving Members any indication of the shape, size or remit of those powers.
There has been far too much legislation of that sort since the Government came to office. They might say that it is for administrative convenience or a better process of legislation, but it requires us to legislate in a vacuum. The House cannot sensibly scrutinise legislation if we are simply looking at a Christmas tree on which a Secretary of State will hang many different regulations in due course. 
Secondly, even if one accepts that statutory instruments are a good way of making legislation—which I do not—once they have been laid before the House through the affirmative or negative procedure, we cannot amend them but can only accept or reject them. I suspect that that is not a very intelligent way of proceeding. I therefore urge the Government to have the self-confidence to allow their regulations to be properly debated and scrutinised, because in failing to provide us with draft regulations now—I doubt very much that we will see them on Report, and that any of them will be ready for the other place—

Kali Mountford: The basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that he dislikes secondary legislation, but this procedure is not new, so surely the Conservative party used it when it was in government. Will he tell us whether his party was against such regulations then?

Edward Garnier: I was trying to make a serious constitutional point, so perhaps the hon. Lady will desist from the, ''You did it in your time, so yah boo sucks!'' sort of argument. I am not trying to advance that sort of argument. I am trying to demonstrate that the purpose of a Committee, and of a Parliament, is to ensure that the legislation that we pass is good. I might disagree with it, but if we are going to have it, we might as well make it as good as we can. [Interruption.] I did not intend to provoke a row; I am trying to  advance an argument. The hon. Lady might not know the difference.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not mind a row, but I do not want any rows in Committee. Nor do I want hon. and right hon. Members to heckle across the Committee Room when a Member is speaking. I hope to give everyone the opportunity to have their say, but they will do so when they are on their feet, not from a sedentary position.

Edward Garnier: Thank you, Mr. Hood. The argument that I wish to deploy is that it is not good to legislate in a vacuum. We are not doing our constituents or Parliament any good if we allow Governments of either complexion—perhaps that will help the hon. Lady—to create a statutory framework on which to hang unseen unknown regulations, which when we come to debate them must be accepted or rejected but cannot be amended. That is not a good way to produce legislation.

Tobias Ellwood: I would like clarification from the Minister on how he decided on the age of 16. Recently, London Transport decided to allow schoolchildren to travel free on the buses. For some people it is as important to be able to prove that they are under 16 as it is for others to prove that they are over 16, so an ID card would be useful.
From the point of view of administration, it also seems logical—perhaps this is the purpose of subsection (6)—to introduce ID cards that are linked with the birth certificate and thereby have those details, rather than issuing them at 16. It would be a one-stop process to put people on the register. Also, 16 is a crucial age. Sixteen-year-olds are allowed to go places that 15 year-olds are not. If they can apply to go on the register only once they are 16, they will have to wait before they manage to get themselves on the register and get an ID card, should they wish to have one to show that they are 16. 
My final point is that an identity system may be useful. I grew up in Vienna, where there is a requirement to carry identification. I stress ''identification'', which is different from a specific type of ID card. People had to be able to prove at any time who they were by showing any one of a number of forms of ID; they could choose whatever sort of card they liked. I had a Schulausweis—a school ID card. If a nine-year-old gets lost in a foreign city where they do not speak the language, producing identification may be helpful in returning them to their family—and such things do not necessarily happen abroad, so this could apply any time that children were separated from their parents.

John Robertson: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Perhaps he could simplify it a bit for someone who was born and lived in a tenement in Glasgow. It is difficult to understand where he is going. Is he arguing for or against introducing a card for 16-year-olds? Does he want them for people aged 14 or nine—or 18, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) suggests?

Tobias Ellwood: I am exploring the arguments about why 16 was chosen. There are advantages and disadvantages to having identification. I made it clear that I have no personal objection to carrying identification—we all carry it now. However, I am against the principle of a database on which all the details listed in clause 1 are kept and can then be used. That is separate from individuals being able to prove quickly what their name and address is.
I am putting forward my argument because the purpose of the Committee, if I may respectfully say so, is to determine whether a clause is appropriate or whether it can be improved. I am giving examples of scenarios in which different age groups would be affected by a change in the clause. Will the Minister clarify why the age of 16 has been chosen, as I have given examples of how those in different situations could benefit in different ways?

Ben Wallace: Will the Minister clarify one point further? Clause 2(2) states that an individual will be entitled to be entered in the register from the age of 16. Does that mean that some people will be entered in the register before the age of 16? For example, at birth, would their registration in the national birth certificate register be transferred so that there was a skeleton entry before they input their information at the age of 16, or does ''entitled'' mean that nobody will be on the register before that age unless that is prescribed by the Secretary of State?

Tony McNulty: All that the lead amendment seeks to do, as the hon. Member for Newark suggested, is to change the entitlement to registration age from 16 to 18. As I understand it, the clause says ''entitlement'' because, as a piece of enabling legislation, it will start off as voluntary and procedures will be brought in to move to compulsion. There is not that compulsion at the start. That is all that ''entitlement'' means; it does not mean that people could be registered under 16. I will come to the question about birth certificates later.
The age of 16 was chosen simply because it is the age at which each individual is entitled to a separate passport. We have said clearly that from next year we will implement the first generation of biometric passports and that the ID card system will build on the second generation from 2008 onwards. Of course, there are compelling arguments to make the age 18, 21 or 14, or to say that the system should start from birth, but the practicalities of how we will implement the project mean that the age of 16, and the piggy-backing on top of the—I am struggling not to say roll-out—implementation of the biometric passports, are the way to go. 
The hon. Member for Newark and subsequently the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) gave us the rather lazy canard about carrying the ID card; no one will be compelled to carry the ID card, and we must get that clear. It would be nice if people avoided that in their examples from Vienna and elsewhere. We have not had a wadi yet today, but doubtless we will. There is nothing in all 45 clauses, or in the schedules, to suggest the compulsory carrying of  ID cards. I will keep saying that every time an Opposition Member suggests that that element is present. 
The link with the passport is the absolute key. 
Mr. Garnier rose—

Tony McNulty: I will come to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment.
Sixteen is also the age at which a national insurance number is issued. Combating illegal working is one of the main aims of the ID card scheme. ID cards will make it easier for employers to check the age of potential employees and their entitlement to work. Young people—admittedly not all of them—are likely to be more economically active after 16, and will need to open a bank or building society account if they do not have one already. An ID card will make that easier. 
I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman now, if he still wants to intervene. 
Mr. Garnier indicated dissent.

Tony McNulty: I will now deal with the other points, because some genuine points were made.
I shall pass over what is in part a serious debate about constitutionality, secondary legislation and the ''Christmas tree'' nature of enabling legislation. Suffice it to say that the notion that all that was invented in 1997 is complete nonsense. As an aside, let me explain that the hon. Member for Newark did not irritate me yesterday. I do not think that he was trying very hard to, either, and I would not want him to leave the room thinking that he had done so in some way, and feeling guilty. He did not irritate me at all. 
There is no upper age limit in the Bill, and no requirement to carry a card. The hon. Gentleman made a point about that, too. However, there is a power to make exceptions and exemptions. That could be applied to any requirement on the register—such as obtaining a card, or providing the biometric, which, again, illustrates the fluidity of an enabling measure that the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests will mature over time. 
I find the arguments put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland perfectly acceptable; he is wrong, but the arguments are cogent and honest points. He says that if there are to be substantive changes in any of the key elements of the project as represented by the Bill, they should be included in a Bill. Sadly, trying to secure a primary legislation slot purely to change the age limit in a project might not be the most appropriate point of principle against secondary legislation on which to hang his hat.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister would assist me greatly if he offered an example of the circumstances in which we would want to change the age specified in subsection (2). I cannot think of one that would be so significant that it would merit the scrutiny given to primary rather than secondary legislation.

Tony McNulty: I think that there will not be one, but that if there is any at all the pressure will be downwards, not upwards. Reasons may well be  suggested for the age of 12 or 14, or even less, to be provided for. We are very comfortable with 16. I cannot see any compelling pressure developing, given the direction in which society is moving, for a rise to 18, 21 or beyond. I accept that point, but I do not think that the change in question to the framework of the Bill is so momentous that it would warrant primary rather than secondary legislation. I accept the point; I just do not agree with it.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister makes a fair point when he says that the change would not be momentous in relation to this Bill; it would, however, be a significant change to the rights and obligations of the child. It would fundamentally strike at the nature of the parent-child and child-state relationships. That would deserve primary rather than secondary legislation.

Tony McNulty: That is a fair point; I just think that the debate will take place elsewhere. We may determine in the future, for example, that children mature far earlier than they do now and that perhaps 14 rather than 16 is a more appropriate age at which to have a passport in one's own right. That might fundamentally transform the relationship between parent and child. The debate on the relevant measure would take place in that context and it would doubtless be primary legislation, as it would be fairly significant. That would act as a prompt, given that at least the initial stages are based on the implementation of biometric passports; but the debate would already have taken place on that significant and perhaps momentous change to legislation. I cannot necessarily envisage the age for passports for individuals going down to 12.
Mr. Garnier rose—

Tony McNulty: I sit down when I choose to, with the best will in the world.

Edward Garnier: His Majesty.

Tony McNulty: It is not a case of His Majesty. It is just the way things work, and I was in the middle of a sentence.
I do not think that what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggests is likely to happen, but, should it happen, there would need to be a correlation with the Bill. We are quite comfortable about that happening through the affirmative procedure of secondary legislation. 
It should be borne in mind too—I shall let the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland respond, and we shall finish our conversation before I start a new one—that we have shifted from the negative procedure provided for by the previous Bill to the affirmative procedure in the present Bill simply on the issue in question. It is not a wide constitutional debate but a narrow issue, important though it is, involving age.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has twice said—I thought I had not followed him correctly the first time—that 16 is the age at which individual passports are available. My understanding, which is borne out  by my family's experience, is that children can be given an individual passport at birth. Will he explain that?

Tony McNulty: Children under 16 can apply only through their parents; they are individual passports, but they can be applied for only by the parents. That is why I was specific about individuals applying for their own passport as distinct from parents applying for the family. The hon. Gentleman spoke about uncoupling the link between child and parent, but only after the age of 16 can children apply in their own capacity rather than through their parents.

Patrick Mercer: Does the Minister foresee the bill for identity cards for a large family with several children aged between 16 and 18 falling entirely upon the parents once the register has done its full term? Is there likely to be a reduction in the cost of identity cards for 16 to 18-year-olds?

Tony McNulty: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that, along with capping the price of ID cards, we would return before the parliamentary process had run its course with indications on concessions and other aspects of the fee regime. A later clause deals with the fee regime, and we will doubtless return to the subject.
The point made about the national children's database is entirely fair, but the database serves an entirely different purpose from the national identity register. It is clear from the Bill that the national identity register is a stand-alone database. The children's database aims to improve services for children, with an emphasis on early intervention for those with special needs, and it will improve the sharing of information between practitioners—for example, in education and health—to prevent problems from escalating. However, it is quite distinct from the objectives of the ID card scheme. It is a stand-alone scheme. Many people, including those between the ages of 16 and 18 referred to by the hon. Gentleman, may have their details held on other Government databases, but that does not lessen the need for a separate identity card scheme, supported by its own register. 
There are two aspects to the amendment. The age is linked in the first instance to the roll-out of individual passports from the age of 16. The hon. Gentleman wanted to change the age to 18, and fair arguments can be made for such a change, but we do not accept them. We would prefer the flexibility offered by the Bill. It is entirely fair to say that such a fundamental change should be made by primary legislation rather than secondary legislation, but we disagree. However, we have moved from the negative to the affirmative procedure, which is appropriate. The other outstanding point is that of going further, not using primary legislation but keeping the secondary legislation route and, for want of another phrase, making it super-affirmative, with a report and other elements coming first. Again, we would invoke that process when moving to compulsion, but we do not think that a super-affirmative procedure is necessary for this part of the Bill, and we would resist it. 
The only other element that was raised is the flexibility of the scheme. Provisos are mentioned in  paragraph 44 of the explanatory notes that could exclude people over a certain age from the requirement to register under clause 6(1) and clause 41(4), which between them give the power to apply compulsion to different groups and to make exceptions. The hon. Member for Newark was entirely fair to say that, for those aspects, the Bill will mature. I said yesterday that further work needed to be done—for instance, to capture those of an itinerant nature and so on. It is the same for vulnerable groups when it comes to the interview and the biometrics.

Ben Wallace: I would not have intervened, but the Minister said that he was addressing the final point. Will he answer a point that I raised? When people are registered at birth, will any of those details go on the register; or will that happen only when they reach the age of 16, or if they are prescribed individuals?

Tony McNulty: I will address that point before I sit down.
The hon. Member for Newark made a point about the interviewing process and the capture of biometric data from the vulnerable—he mentioned his mother today and his father, I think, yesterday—and it explains precisely why there is flexibility in the Bill to talk about exemptions and exceptions. We need to work through those details. 
I am not sure about all the details of the process of retina/iris deterioration that takes place as we grow older, but I can see, intuitively, that there may be some deterioration. Clearly, our skin withers a bit, but it is still appropriate to capture fingerprints. Hon. Members should also bear it in mind that, for many people, the 10-year cycle will map the deterioration that eventually happens to us all, and we will need to deal with that towards the end of the process. 
If someone has been on the register for 20 years, there will be sufficient established security about their identity, given all the data that will have been captured in two trawls over that period, to lessen the requirement for biometrics and all the other processes. We are looking at that element of the capture process, and that is what the first piece of research that we issued on the biometric trials was about; it was not about the data, but about the physicality and the environmental dimensions involved in data capture. 
Clause 2(4) gives the power to add registrable facts in relation to people who are not entitled to be entered. That is not a rule, strictly, on registering from birth, but it could, for example, be used to create entries for rising 15s—that was the phrase used by some hon. Member, although I cannot remember who—to prepare the way for registration at 16. In its strictest interpretation, ''not entitled'' means starting to capture information on someone before they are 16; it is not the intention to have a 15 or 16-year tail, with people registering on the national database at birth and subsequently completing the exercise at 16. However, there is scope and flexibility for details of rising 15s to be so added in preparation for those people being added at 16. 
That was a lengthy explanation, but I think that I have captured most of the points that were raised. We  are comfortable with 16 and with the process of change at 16, should we take that path. We would resist a super-affirmative procedure and, in that context, all the amendments. However, in the spirit of harmony, good will and humour that characterises the Committee as it continues to trundle along, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael: May I briefly put a few more thoughts on the record? The Minister's speech has stimulated my thought processes, which was careless of him, and I trust that he will not make a habit of it. That is not an accusation that I usually level at Ministers.
What will be the implications of lowering the age at which a person might be placed on the register? That should be given further consideration. There are several reasons why that could be problematic and why it would deserve primary rather than secondary legislation. 
Who would be liable for any fee? Who would be liable in the event that there was a refusal to provide data? Presumably that would be a criminal offence, but would the child be liable for prosecution, or would liability attach to the parent? 
Would the child, in his or her own right, be entitled to make an application under clause 1(5)(h) for information about the number of times that applications had been made for access to the register in respect of them? 
In recent years, there has been useful clarification about the contractual capacity of children: basically, they have very little until they reach 16 and thereafter they have full contractual capacity. From memory, when I studied law in Scotland girls got contractual capacity at 12 and boys at 14. We have standardised all that, which is why a change of this sort could open up a can of worms that would bring with it significant questions deserving of primary rather than secondary legislation.

Patrick Mercer: It might interest the Committee to know that there has been a major incident on the London underground and the whole of the underground is suspended. As far as we know, there has been a collision and an explosion of some sort at Liverpool street, which has meant—forgive me for digressing, Mr. Hood—that a number of fire alarms have been triggered, due to a power surge, in other underground stations. The Metropolitan police have declared this a major incident. On that note, I will excuse myself in due course if I may, and leave my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough to continue.
First, the Minister has failed to explain to me whether the information needed on the register from birth will be required and how parents will be required to pay for children under 18. I do not understand why an upper age limit cannot be introduced, because if it were introduced it would be cheaper and would save time and expense—and there will be an opportunity cost in so doing. 
Secondly, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made his points extraordinarily well. We need guards and protections in the Bill to ensure that any further alterations to the provisions therein are laid before both Houses of Parliament. In the face of the fact that the Minister has failed to convince me on this matter, I fear I must seek to divide the Committee. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Edward Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 45, leave out 'the prescribed period' and insert
'a period of 31 days'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 46, at end insert 'or'. 
No. 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out from 'period' to end of line 4. 
No. 187, in clause 2, page 3, line 4, at end insert 
'or, 
(d) he is a citizen of an European Union Member State with an approved idenitity document issued by that state.'.

Edward Garnier: I want to set the discussion about these amendments in context.
Listening to the Minister during the last debate, one might have thought that the Government were going to do something attractive to the country as a whole. They say that only those who are entitled to be on the register will be registered, as if it were a privilege to be caught up in this great database. 
In every aspect of clause 2 the words ''entitled'' or ''entitlement'' are to be found. For instance: 
''An entry must be made into the Register for every individual who . . . is entitled to be entered''
and: 
''The individuals entitled to be entered in the Register are—every individual who has attained the age of 16 and, without being excluded under subsection (3) from an entitlement to be registered, is residing at a place in the United Kingdom''.
Subsection (3), with which we are particularly concerned, states: 
''Regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide that an individual residing in the United Kingdom is excluded from an entitlement to be registered''.
There will be two classes of person in this country: those who are fortunate enough to be entitled to be registered on this great database, containing  information that will swish around the Government system; and those poor unfortunates who will be beyond the pale. That includes foreigners, for example, or people who are not in the country for more than three months, or for another period prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations that we have yet to see. They shall not be entitled to be on the register; they will not be entitled to carry with them, if they so desire, this great piece of technology. 
The first reason that the Government gave for entitling us to go, or granting us the privilege of going, on the register was that we would thus be the greater protected from terrorism. They then said that if the protection was not from terrorism, it was from crime, and if it was not crime, it was now from fraud. Those are the reasons why the Government say that we are so pleased to be entitled to go on the register. 
What about those who are to be excluded? What about if one is 
''residing in the United Kingdom in exercise of an entitlement to remain there that will end less than the prescribed period after it was acquired''?
Let us forget about whether that is good English, and let us see what the provision means. As I understand it, those people who come to this country either as tourists or as business visitors, but who have a visa to stay in the country for no more than three months, will not be entitled—poor things—to go on the register. They are the very people who might not care whether they have the entitlement, and who might not be the least interested in the preservation of our institutions and our way of life. They may be terrorists, serious criminals or the sort of people who wish to defraud our benefit system.

Tobias Ellwood: On the subject of terrorism, it is interesting to learn that since the events of 9/11, the emphasis has been placed on that very group—those who want to enter the United States for such a period. Everyone will know if they have visited the United States, that a photograph is taken of oneself, and that one's biometric data are stored. That is what has been done to combat the threat of terrorism in the United States. If the Bill is trying to do anything to help us crack down on terrorism, leaving out that important group of people who visit our country for a three-month period is a mistake, and it does nothing to help us combat terrorism.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Let us face it, it is not a new argument. It is not a surprise that he has brought out from his briefcase this morning; it is an assertion and a fact that has been in the public record and in front of us for the past four or five years. We have the experience of not only New York, Washington DC and the plane crash in Philadelphia on 11 September 2001, but Madrid and any number of other terrible terrorist outrages. If the Government are trying to persuade us that we, the privileged few, who are entitled to be registered on this great database will feel the greater protection because of what this beneficent Government are giving to us, they fool themselves if they do not fool us.
Amendment No. 13 would specify a period of, broadly, a calendar month. I invite the Government to  explain what on earth they think they are up to. It is all very well for them to say, through their various Ministers and spokesmen, that this will be a great boon to the UK—to all of us who are fearful that another terrorist incident will take place—and that the register and ID card schemes will give us greater protection, but they are leaving open a most obvious door for potential terrorists to come into our country. Do we imagine that, somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan or north-west Pakistan, or somewhere in the far reaches of the middle east, those who wish our country ill and intend to create havoc through terrorist activity will be in the least bit bothered that if they stay in our country for longer than ''the prescribed period'' they will be entitled to be logged on to the register? They must be quivering in their caves. If the Government wish us to take them seriously in fighting against terrorism by means of this ID register, they will have to provide us with better arguments than that it is an entitlement for us but it is not an entitlement for those who wish to come here for only a short period. 
Let us consider benign visitors—those who are genuine tourists or genuinely visiting for business reasons—and who will stay in our country for a shorter time than the prescribed period, which the amendment sets at 31 days. How can they be assured that they will not be the subject of suspicion, and that they can go about their lawful business without being hindered as they enter museums, churches or railway stations? How will they be able to demonstrate that they fall outside the Government's suspicion of potential terrorism? Presumably, the only way that they will be able to do that is by producing their own national identity card, and unless that card is of the same sort as ours—unless it can be scanned and read by a police officer at a police station—it will be utterly useless in our country, although they use it in their own country. If the clause is not amended, the Government will open up huge potential for offending visitors to our country who are here for a legitimate purpose, while at the same time failing to protect us from the threat of terrorism, which they claim is one of the major purposes of the ID register and ID card scheme. 
Amendment No. 14 would add ''or'' at the end of subsection (3)(a), so that each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are alternatives. I would be interested to hear from the Government why paragraphs (a) and (b) are thought to be conjunctive whereas paragraphs (b) and (c) are alternatives. 
Amendment No. 15 would leave out paragraph (c). The arguments that hang from that are the same as those that I have deployed in relation to the earlier amendments. 
I am sure that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will have something to say about amendment No. 187. However, the point that must be made here is that the Government are promising something with one hand while failing to provide the means by which it can be fulfilled with the other. They utterly fail to understand the lacuna in the Bill, and it utterly fails to live up to their intentions.

Ben Wallace: I want to pick up the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. It is important to recognise that, according to the British Tourist Authority, some 24 million overseas visitors come to the United Kingdom each year. That is a hefty swathe of individuals who will not be subject to many of these regulations or to requirements such as having to carry an ID card.
Let me give three examples of cases of terrorism in the past 15 years to demonstrate on the basis of different acts of terrorism that the ID card and the exemption that appears in the Bill would have done nothing to prevent such acts, and indeed that the Bill and ID card scheme will not do anything. 
The first example will be familiar to hon. Members: the ricin attack Some of the key members of the terrorist cell involved in that incident came into the country in the few months before the attack to activate the cell, to lead it and to take it to its next step. Those individuals would not have been covered by the ID scheme, and the attack would not have been prevented. My second example is the English department of the IRA or Provisional IRA, which bombed London and many other parts of the United Kingdom for many years until the mid-1990s, using operatives from the Republic of Ireland. As we know from the free trade area—

Edward Garnier: The common travel area.

Ben Wallace: My hon. and learned Friend corrects me. Individuals coming from the common travel area would not have been required to carry ID cards, so those key members of some of the IRA's most active cells would not have been prevented by the ID card scheme from carrying out their tasks.
Thirdly, there were those who assisted the IRA in other areas, such as Germany, where there were bombs at bases, or Gibraltar. How will British targets abroad, such as those in Turkey, be protected by the scheme? All those examples illustrate the way in which terrorists exploit gaps in systems. They do not go for the leafy, middle class areas where we all live by the rules and they can be spotted; they exploit the areas in our regulation and society where they will not be spotted, and where they will be allowed to get away with their activities. 
When we make more and more exemptions among those obliged to carry the ID card, including, for example, people who are seeking asylum, we should realise what that means: it is creating ever more gaps that can be exploited by terrorists. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) shakes her head, but if she can explain to me how terrorism will be excluded from the activities of 24 million people, I shall be delighted. I cannot understand how those who are currently excluded will stop being a threat. Millions of visitors, as well as the 840,000 Irish citizens who live in this country, are excluded, and we should not forget it. It is important for the Minister to take on board the fact that gaps in the regulations will ultimately be exploited by terrorists. If we are going to introduce a system, it must be more robust than this one. I do not believe that it is possible to  make it more robust, so I do not believe that it is a system worth having.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for favouring us with his thoughts on that subject, not least because I had not noticed that amendment No. 187 was one of mine until the hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned it. This is a probing amendment; if it were anything else it would have rather more substance. Its purpose is to tease out some of the Government's thinking on reciprocity and to float the idea that, if we are to have the scheme, there might be merit in constructing it in such a way that it is not a hindrance to the free movement of labour, in particular, in the European Union. There must be some scope under current arrangements for reciprocal arrangements, so will the Minister tell us his thinking on that?
I am broadly sympathetic to the Conservative amendments, given the inconsistency between the Government's stated aims in relation to terrorism and the period that has been prescribed. The problem is that the difficulties are the same, whether the period is 31 days or three months. It is simply a question of where one draws the line. 
Notwithstanding everything that I said about regulatory powers, I wonder whether it might be preferable for the period to be set in regulation in this instance, as it might have to be altered with some urgency and as circumstances dictate. One might even consider reducing it at some stage to less than 31 days. 
Those are merely thoughts, and I do not by any means have a closed mind on the question whether 31 days is the right period. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Tony McNulty: Let me start with the hon. Gentleman's penultimate point. We entirely accept that if we can move to a common specification across Europe on ID cards, we can then have reciprocity and reach the stage where we do not have to register all EU nationals living in the country for more than three months. We are not, however, near that stage. We have vowed to make progress on the issue during our EU presidency, but it is very early days. In the longer term, we seek to reach a stage at which the card could  be used as the document for travel within the EU. Such things must spring at least from elements of standardisation, before we can move to reciprocity, but the points that he made are entirely fair.
Under current EU law, as I understand it, European economic area nationals and their families cannot be forced to register before the end of that three-month period. That is simply the way it is under the current directive. Even if it were not, I would prefer a prescribed period to be included in the Bill rather than defined in regulations. That implies support for the hon. Gentleman's last point. Indeed, I believe that he is right in that regard. The Bill does not prescribe a period of three months, but we are saying that we will define three months as the prescribed period. 
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) might be right about tourism, but he is wrong about all the ins and outs of things that happen at our ports. In 2003, a total of some 91 million people arrived at UK ports, of whom 64 million were British, 15 million were EEA nationals, and 12 million were foreign nationals subject to immigration controls. Let us take those figures in reverse. By the time we implement the e-borders system—[Interruption.] I did not name it; the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland should not smile. By the time we implement the e-borders system in 2008, the biometric details of every one of those 12 million foreign nationals subject to immigration—in other words, visa nationals—will be captured before they leave their port of departure, as in America, and we will have that information about them. 
On the modernised, high-tech version of embarkation controls, although I want to avoid going down the road of yah-boo politics, I should say that embarkation controls were lifted in part by the Conservative Government and completed by this Government, so the gap will be filled. It will take time. It cannot happen instantly, but it is not helpful— 
It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at One o'clock.